for the Chariot on dry land has the same importance as the Ship on the water.

On receiving the game from India the Persians changed the word "Roka" into Rukh, which in their language means a "Hero," or "Warrior;" also a swift and fierce species of camel; and, as we shall show in our next chapter, the first of these meanings seems to be the sense attached to the word by the poet Firdausi. From the Persians the game passed on to the Greeks and Arabs ; and, in the language of the latter, the word Rukh has but one meaning, viz., that of the celebrated fabulous bird so called. This bird, according to the best accounts of all who have not seen it, was furnished with two heads, and he could with ease carry to his nest by way of breakfast for his young ones, four full-grown Elephants at a time-viz., one in each of his two beaks, and one in each

ANSWER TO OUR LAST NUMBER'S CHESS QUERY.

·

Sir,-In your number of last Saturday there is a Chess Query, signed "Alpha," to which I hasten to reply. Alpha asks "What proof is there that latterly among the Hindus the Ship (of the old game) was changed into the Chariot ?" I answer, that the proofs are innumerable. To adduce a few :My principal authority is the great Colebrooke, undoubtedly the first Sanskrit scholar of his day. In a note to a paper on Chess, by Captain Hiram Cox, in the seventh volume of the "Asiatic Researches," 8vo edition, p. 504, Colebrooke says, "I find also, in an ancient Treatise of Law,' the Elephant, Horse, and Chariot mentioned as pieces of the game of Chaturanga." In the same paper Alpha will find that in the common Hindustānī game the piece which we call Rook is there called Rukh, or Rath-showing that the Indian people used at that time both the Persian and Sanskrit term: in all probability the former was in use among the Musalmāns, and the latter among the Hindūs. Furthermore, in the Burmese game, which was undoubtedly derived from that of the Hindus, the Rook is called Ratha-the Sanskrit word itself, pure and unchanged. This proves two things at once, viz., that the Burmese game came from India; and that, at whatever period that event took place, the Hindus had the Chariot, and not the Ship. Lastly, the Malays, &c., to this day have the Chariot in the place of our Rook; as may be seen in an extract from "Rajah Brooke's Journal," published in the ninth volume of the Chess-player's Chronicle. I may further observe that Colebrooke, in the same note, states that the people of Bengal, in his time, still used the Boat for the Rook; whereas those of the Carnatic used the Chariot.-D. FORBES.

cr

claw. I think this belief in the two-headed bird among the Arabs gave rise to the older form of the piece, on its introduction into Europe, as shown by Sir Frederic Madden, in his "Dissertation on the Chessmen found in the Island of Lewis," p. 239, &c. Last of all, we call this piece a "Rook," the meaning of which term is, I believe, very vague. Whether the chess-player imagines it to signify literally the pilfering black bird of that name, or figuratively the respectable character that is said to prey on pigeons, are points on which I am altogether unable to give a decided opinion. But to conclude, I think, from all the evidence I have laid before the reader, I may safely say, that the game of Chess has existed in India from the time of Pandu and his five sons down to the reign of our gracious Sovereign Queen Victoria (who now rules over those same Eastern realms)—that is, for a period of five thousand years; and that this very ancient game, in the sacred language of the Brahmans, has, during that long space of time, retained its original and expressive name of Chaturanga.

We have no means of ascertaining the exact era at which the Chaturanga passed into the Shatranj, or, in other words, at what period, as the Muhammadans view it, the Hindus invented the latter form of the game. The earlier writers of Arabia and Persia do not agree on the point-some of them placing it as early as the time of Alexander the Great, and others as late as that of Naushirawan. Even the poet Firdausi, the very best authority among them, though he devotes a very long and a very romantic episode to the occasion of the invention of the Shatranj, is quite silent as to the exact period: all that he lets us know on that point is that it took place in the reign of a certain prince who ruled over northern India, and whose name was Gau, the son of Jamhūr.

The

Brahmans are silent on the subject, partly because the change was a matter of no importance in their eyes, or most probably because it took place after the Sanskrit had become a dead language; consequently we need not feel any surprise at what Sir William Jones states when alluding to the Shatranj, which, by the way, he fancies to be the same as the game played by Philidor. In his discourse already cited, he says-" Yet, of this simple game, so exquisitely contrived, and so certainly invented in India, I cannot find any account in the classical writings of the Brahmans." Now, the reason for Sir William's disappointment is obvious enough; "the classical writings of the Brahmans" had been, in all probability, composed many centuries before the separate existence of the mediæval game. Sir William then states-" At present I can only exhibit a description of a very ancient game of the same kind (the Chaturanga); but more complex, and, in my opinion, more modern, than the simple Chess of the Persians." Here we see an instance of a great mind's falling into an inconsistency from having hastily adopted a paradoxical opinion at the outset. We are told that the Chaturanga is " a very ancient game," and yet "more complex and more modern than (the Shatranj) the simple Chess of the Persians;" and this was stated by Sir William when he had before him written authority in favour of the remote antiquity of the former, and none whatever respecting the latter!

The change of the original word Chaturanga into the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish term "Shatranj," has been satisfactorily explained by Sir William in the same discourse, where he states-"By a natural corruption of the pure Sanskrit word, it was changed by the old Persians into Chaturang, or more commonly Chatrang; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their country,

had neither the initial nor final letters of that word in their alphabet, and consequently they altered it further into Shatranj, which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of the name is known only to the learned." I cannot agree, however, with Sir William in his next sentence, where he states-" Thus has a very significant word in the sacred language of the Brahmans been transformed by successive changes into axedras, scacchi, échecs, chess, and, by a whimsical concurrence of circumstances, given birth to the English word 'check,' and even a name to the Exchequer' of Great Britain." Now, I maintain that it is not the Sanskrit word Chaturanga from which scacchi, échecs, chess, &c., are derived but the Persian word, "Shah" (King) which we find in use to this day among the Arabs and Persians, in the same sense as our word "check." In fact, we ourselves frequently use the literal translation of "Shah" in actual play, when, instead of "check," we say "the King," or simply "King." So the French often say, "Au Roi ;" and the Germans beat us all in exactness, for they really possess the identical word, "Schach," which they employ to denote the game itself, as well as our word "Check; while the term Schach-matt (which we have corrupted into Check-mate), is, both in pronunciation and meaning, the Persian and Arabic expression, "pur et simple."

CHAPTER VI.

SHATRANJ.

Introduction of the Game into India, in the Reign of Naushirawan. Arrangement of the Pieces on the Board. Their Moves and Powers.

THE earliest and best account of the Shatranj, or mediæval Chess, to which we have as yet attained access, is that given by the poet Firdausi, who flourished in the latter half of the tenth century. We know, however, that during the eighth and ninth centuries of the Christian era, the acute Arabs, under the munificent patronage of the Caliphs of Bagdad, had made rapid and distinguished progress in the theory and practice of the game. A physician named Abul 'Abbas, who died A.D. 899, wrote a treatise on Chess; and within the next half-century lived the celebrated Al Suli, who may be considered as the Arabian Philidor, distinguished at once as the finest player of his time, and also as the author of the best work, till then existing, on the game. We also read of Lajlāj and 'Adali, among the early masters, each of whom wrote a treatise on the subject; but it is very doubtful whether any of these works be now extant, their merits being superseded by performances of more recent date. It is possible, however, that one or other of them may